Maier starts conventionally, with a brief overview of the crisis that sparked the need for a Constitution, but is very brief on those causes, which aren't the focus of the book. I don't recall any discussion of the Annapolis Convention, although I might just not remember it, and there was a brief discussion of Shays Rebellion, but the main thrust of causes for Maier is the total lack of fiscal and military powers under the Articles of Confederation. In the Winter/Spring of 1787, fewer than seven states were represented in Congress, and it could not conduct business. Finally, once New York refused to ratify the 1783 impost amendment without disabling conditions, Rufus Kind introduced, and Congress endorsed a resolution to have a convention of state delegates in Philadelphia in May "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation," in order to "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." At the Constitutional Convention, beginning on May 25th, delegates were forbidden from printing, publishing, or communicating in any way what was said during the debates, which I thought was an interesting provision that would be controversial today. Apparently Madison made some communications in his letters in code, according to Maier.
Maier points out that the Federalist Papers, traditionally understood as the best documents for understanding "the founder's intent," the holiest thing in constitutional analysis, are not the only documents that are useful, and may not be the best. She notes that newspapers outside New York only republished twenty-four of the eighty-five Federalist essays during the ratification controversy, and most that republished them only published a few. Federalist Number 10, perhaps the most famous for advocating that republics were more likely to survive in large polities than small ones (contrary to contemporary conventional wisdom) was only republished once outside New York, in the Pennsylvania Gazette. The actual documents' influence was probably not very strong outside New York, where they didn't have much reach. To explain an alternate source of pro-Federalist influence, Maier centers George Washington's letter-writing campaign. He had huge influence all over the country, and especially in Virginia, not just from chairing the Constitutional Convention but for writing letters that came in handy for convincing delegates at state conventions. Her prologue is titled, "The View from Mount Vernon."
The State Ratification Conventions
Maier splits up the state ratification conventions into broad collections of chapters that move chronologically, focusing in on conventions of note. So she starts with a chapter on Pennsylvania, (in which she casually mentions ratification in Delaware, Georgia, and New Jersey), moves on to Connecticut, focuses on Massachusetts for two chapters, talks about the "Rough Road to Richmond" through conventions in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Rhode Island and Maryland, before dedicating two chapters to Virginia, followed by New York. I'll go into the details below.
Pennsylvania (2nd ratification: December 12th, 1787)
Pennsylvania was an interesting start in being anticlimactic. There should have been a lively debate in Pennsylvania like there was in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York, and it was surprising how quickly Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution. Its size meant that it could survive without union, and it's port in Philadelphia meant it could charge customs fees to other states to use it. However, there was no debate at all. Every vote in Pennsylvania's convention was resolved roughly 44 Federalists to 22 Anti-Federalists. Delegates were basically elected only if they had strong opinions one way or the other, so without being contractually bound to vote in one direction or another, they were functionally bound to do so. There was still lots of showy oratory, but no one changed their mind. Just pure partisanship, previewing what we live with today. The Federalists had high hopes since the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were both formed in Pennsylvania, and even voted to provide the land for the new capital. They also thought they would be the first to ratify the Constitution.
Delaware (1st ratification: December 7th, 1787)
Ha! Too slow! Delaware snuck in on December 3rd and ratified the Constitution by a unanimous vote while Pennsylvania wasn't looking. Pennsylvania had met on November 21st and spent three weeks pontificating without anyone changing their minds, and found out after they ratified that Delaware just met on December 3rd and did it in a day. Even though Delaware was incredibly polarized between rival factions of Whigs and Tories, they all knew one thing: once the Constitution was in effect, Delaware wouldn't have to pay duties that Pennsylvania levied on goods imported through Philadelphia and sold to the people of Delaware. Delaware also offered land for the new federal capital.
New Jersey (3rd ratification: December 18th, 1787)
New Jersey's convention, like Delaware's, didn't want to have to pay duties on goods shipped through another state (New York instead of Pennsylvania). They unanimously approved the Constitution at the Blazing Star Tavern in Trenton by a vote of 38-0 after a week of deliberation. Unfortunately, they did not record their debates and there were no articles published in the press about ratification in New Jersey.
Georgia (4th Ratification: December 31st, 1787, or January 2nd, 1788)
Georgia was also basically a one-day ratification as soon as they got a quorum, and it was also unanimous, 26-0. This is really weird though because Maier lists the date of ratification as December 31st, but online most sources say January 2nd. I think there is some weirdness about formal ratification versus some initial vote, but I am not interested enough in Robert's Rules of Order or this detail to find out why there is this difference. Like New Jersey, Georgia left no records of any debate or reasons for ratification. Maier hypothesizes that Georgia needed federal help fighting Creek Indians on its western frontier, as well as the Spanish to its south. But it also had good reason to worry that Congress would take the title to its western lands, which extended through modern-day Alabama and Mississippi to the Mississippi river. It is basically lost to history why Georgia ratified the Constitution.
Connecticut (5th ratification: January 9, 1788)
The ratification process started to get harder in 1788, and Connecticut is sort of a transition point between the first four easy states and some tougher debates ahead. Like New Jersey and Georgia, the Connecticut convention left no journal, and all reports of debates came from newspapers, which mostly covered Federalist speeches. The big question that still hadn't really arisen was whether there would be amendments to the Constitution. I haven't covered it much since these states all ratified quickly, but the big question for the not-so-convinced states was whether there would be a bill of rights and other amendments. The Constitution was given to the states as an up-or-down vote, but there was a big groundswell of demand for the ability to vote on it paragraph-by-paragraph and propose amendments. Washington and the Federalists did not want this because it would devolve into chaos. In Connecticut, they still voted on the Constitution as a whole, and ratified by a vote of 128 to 40. In Connecticut, many delegates were given instructions to vote by their constituents to vote against the Constitution, but were actually convinced the other way. So Connecticut was the first state with a real, genuine debate about the Constitution on the merits, and the Federalists came out on top. It was becoming clear for future state conventions that the best way to win was to stack the deck early with delegates already bound to vote for or against ratification.
Massachusetts (6th ratification: February 6th, 1788)
Massachusetts became a real battleground for ratification. The home of Shays Rebellion, the impetus of the need for a centralized Constitution, it was well-known going to the convention that western and rural parts of Massachusetts would oppose ratification, while Boston and other ports would likely support it. The Federalist strategy, having gone in knowing they had a delegate advantage, was to not show that advantage early on, to avoid tipping the Anti-Federalists off and leading them to obstruct. Federalists sought to delay votes to the end. They wanted to flip Anti-Federalists who were able to be convinced to their side. So, Massachusetts' convention was the opposite of Pennsylvania where everyone knew which side everyone was on--in Massachusetts it was a genuine, deliberative process. Additionally, the Massachusetts ratification debate is well documented, with an official journal, diaries from several delegates, and newspaper accounts.
In Massachusetts, there was a perception that northerners lived longer and southerners shorter, which the Federalists used to excuse the three-fifths compromise as an acceptable sacrifice to keep the South in the Constitutional union. They also said that with a greater population of women and children (who would be virtually represented by landowning men), that apportionment of delegates based on population, rather than land, would also be favorable to Massachusetts. Moreover, they argued that the provision banning importation of slavery after twenty years was a good compromise, with the implication that slavery would end once its importation ended. This was pretty interesting to read, since that obviously did not happen. I am curious to read some economic and political analysis of the effect of this provision in the Constitution. Obviously, it did not end slavery in 1809, but did it have any effect? It must have made slaves more valuable within the United States, and therefore made slaveowners richer relative to other Southerners within their states. I am curious what historians say about whether the presence of this provision hastened or prolonged the end of slavery. I can definitely see that it would have tabled the issue since people could have reasonably thought until 1809 that slavery would be coming to an end at that point, and was therefore a non-issue. That would roughly correspond to when slavery became a major issue in American politics pre-Missouri Compromise. Probably the argument in favor of the slave importation ban prolonging slavery is that if slaves were still being imported into the United States in the 1830s, say, there would have been more outcry that would bring the issue to a head earlier. But on the other hand, more slaves would have meant more wealth for slavers, and might have made them much stronger by that point, in which case they could have kept slavery around longer. I need to read more on the subject. Maier points out that ending the slave trade was viewed a progress by some, and for some reason people viewed the slave trade as worse than normal day-in-day-out slavery.
On January 31st, the Massachusetts delegates honed in on the prohibition on religious tests for federal office, some delegates arguing that since their forebears had come to America to preserve their religion, that it would be better to put in law that "a person could not be a good man without being a good Christian." But the debate was resolved when Daniel Shute, minister of Second Congregational Church of Hingham (Suffolk County) said that there were "worthy characters" among every denomination including Catholics and devotees of "natural religion," and that none should be excluded from office because of their religious views. But I am not sure who is included in "natural religion." Theophilus Parsons further stated that a religious test would only serve to keep good men out of office, not bad men.
At the end of January, the Massachusetts convention was reaching a point where the Federalists were not sure if they would carry the convention. As their ringer, they pulled John Hancock from his house on January 30th, where had had been ill for several weeks. Hancock, very influential in Boston and Massachusetts as a whole, proposed that Massachusetts ratify the Constitution as a whole, but "enjoin it upon their Representatives in Congress" to "exert all their influence" to secure nine amendments to the Constitution. These amendments would include (1) the reservation of all powers not delegated to Congress to the states, (2) specification that the number of representatives shall be, rather than not exceed, one for every thirty thousand persons until reaching a certain number to be decided later, (3) a prohibition on Congress exercising its power over Congressional elections unless the State failed to do so, (4) a prohibition on direct taxes from Congress except for in cases of emergency when excise and import taxes did not work, (5) a prohibition on Congress creating commercial monopolies, (6) affirmation of grand juries in criminal cases, (7) denying federal courts diversity jurisdiction between citizens of different states unless the sum disputed was of a sufficient value, (8) requiring a petit jury in civil cases, and (9) removing "without the Consent of Congress" from the last paragraph of Article I, Section 9, which would absolutely prohibit federal officeholders from accepting any emolument, office, or title from a foreign country or king. From hindsight, this was a huge win for the Federalists, since we know that these ideas, although influential in statutes and rules passed later, did not make it into Constitutional amendments, at the time, without ratification guaranteed, it was a huge sacrifice. Massachusetts would be the first state to make such a large concession to the Anti-Federalists, and it could jeopardize ratification entirely if states all attached conditions to ratification. However, this was meant not to be a condition, but an aspirational plan for action after ratification.
With Hancock's proposition, Massachusetts still barely ratified the Constitution. It was 187 delegates in favor, 168 against, and 9 absent. This close call kept the ratification train rolling, with six ratifications of the necessary nine for the Constitution to go into effect, but seriously slowed momentum and was considered a bittersweet result for the Federalist cause. Central and Western Massachusetts had been opposed, with Boston and Eastern Massachusetts being in favor. Although the perception at the time was that Maine had some opposition to ratification based on its aspiration for statehood, the Mainers were split with a narrow majority in favor of ratification.
New Hampshire (fakeout: convened but not ratified in February, 1788)
After the narrow victory in Massachusetts, New Hampshire scared Federalists even more, convening for nine days in February, and voting on the 22nd to adjourn without ratifying the Constitution. With few port cities in the southeast of the state New Hampshire was predisposed to be against ratification, being almost entirely backcountry; frontiersmen tended to oppose ratification across the states. Like in Massachusetts, the delegates in New Hampshire opposed the prohibition on religious tests for public office. Moreover, New Hampshire's citizens wanted their state to be able to print its own paper money in order to assist them in paying their debts to outsiders, which the Constitution would impede.
Rhode Island (another inconclusive convention: convened but not ratified in February/March 1788)
Rhode Island ended dreams of ratification without any dissent. Unlike New Hampshire, where Federalists adjourned the proceedings before there could be a vote against ratification, Rhode Island held a referendum and voted against ratification. The assembly was dominated by a "Country Party" that won a big election in 1786 on a platform of paper money, and had a partiality for referenda. It would deny Federalists the ability to convince anyone in the capital, and when the referendum was held, it resulted 2,708 against and only 237 for ratification. I love how small these numbers are. What a ridiculously small number of people voting on this. As a result, Rhode Island would be nicknamed "Rogue Island" for being dragged kicking and screaming into ratification. We will revisit New Hampshire and Rhode Island later. I won't get into the whole paper money thing here, but it seems like that was the hangup for both states, since there was little access to money among farmers.
Maryland (7th ratification: April 28th, 1788)
Once Massachusetts ratified and New Hampshire balking, the eyes of the nation being born turned to Virginia. Washington got worried enough about the outcome in Virginia that he wrote to Madison gently ordering him to attend the ratifying convention in the hopes of influencing the result, telling Madison that his presence would be an "indispensable necessity." Madison identified in his writings to Jefferson that there were three parties in Virginia, the Federalists, who supported ratifying the Constitution without amendments, and two factions of Anti-Federalist, those who wanted amendments, led by George Mason, and those who wanted no ratification at all, who he believed to be led by Patrick Henry. Then, Maier goes on an aside about how Jefferson absolutely hated Patrick Henry. In Virginia, unlike in other states where it was the educated intelligentsia of the cities against the more rural interests, the educated elites were divided.
In Maryland, Madison worried about the outcome and asked Washington to write a letter to the Maryland delegates supporting ratification, which he did. Funny enough, on the same day that Washington wrote his letter, James McHenry, a delegate in Maryland, also asked Washington to write in support of ratification, so he saw that one later and wrote two letters in support of ratification. They voted strongly in favor, 63-11 for ratification on April 28th. The Federalists got their momentum back. After five ratifications in 33 days from December to January 1787-88, the Federalist cause slowed in Massachusetts and then suffered setbacks in New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Over two months passed between ratification in Massachusetts and in Maryland, so Maryland's ratification was a critical gust of wind in Federalist sails, and they continued to look toward Virginia
South Carolina (8th ratification: May 23rd, 1788)
As the states approached the magic number of nine ratifications, Virginia and New York got more and more important. After all, if they got to nine without those two states, would it really mean anything? Before Virginia and New York met in June, South Carolina convened to debate ratification of the Constitution. Only a handful of speeches survive from the convention, which met from May 12th to 24th. On the sixth day of the convention's proceedings, the delegates received news of Maryland's ratification. On May 21st, General Thomas Sumter, an Anti-Federalist, moved to adjourn South Carolina's proceedings until October to see what Virginia would do. It was debated, and voted against, 89-135. South Carolina ratified the Constitution by a vote of 149-73, with most "no" votes coming from inland. Interestingly, Maier points out that the delegates were sort of gerrymandered such that the convention's majority only spoke for 39% of the population, while the minority spoke for 52.2% (with the rest not voting). That gives you some important context on what would seem like a pretty solid vote in favor of ratification! With eight states ratified, that set Virginia up perfectly to be magic number nine, with all the pressure that entails. Three conventions actually met simultaneously in June: Virginia, New York, and New Hampshire. Some questioned why New Hampshire reconvened at that time, and it was apparently because the state legislature was meeting then anyway, and it was more convenient to go straight from the state legislature to the constitutional convention without going home in between.
Virginia (10th ratification: June 25th, 1788)
In Virginia, ratification was reaching its climax, as Virginia had the opportunity to put the Constitution into effect by ratifying it as the ninth state. Historians are lucky to have over six hundred pages in three volumes written by David Peterson, who sat in the gallery, about the Virginia ratification convention. For the Federalists in Virginia, it was useful to have Edmund Randolph, who had left the ratification convention in protest, but now favored ratification of the Constitution in spite of that. In the interest of preserving the union, Randolph declared that the writing was on the wall and that Virginia should join the rest of the states and propose amendments after ratification. Critically, on June 4th, the third day of the convention, news arrived that South Carolina had ratified the Constitution, helping the Federalist cause.
The Federalists' chief opponent was Patrick Henry, who made bombastic, dramatic appeals for weeks to the convention. Maier pointed out an interesting generational difference. The older generation, whose politics were formed in the 1750s and 60s, were highly suspicious of legislatures and government, whereas the younger generation, whose politics were formed in the 70s and 80s, wanted a stronger central government, and did not fear that American government would become like Britain. Henry and Madison exemplified this generational difference in Virginia. Henry took the floor time and time again, speaking on June 5, 7, 9, and 11, going on for hours each time. It would have annoyed the hell out of me, because it sounds like he was just filibustering at a certain point. Gouverneur Morris must have gotten bored watching from the gallery, since he wrote a jokey poem about the ratification debate:
The State's determined Resolution
Was to discuss the Constitution.
For this the Members come together
Melting with Zeal and sultry Weather
And here to their eternal Praise
To find it's Hist'ry spend three Days
The next three Days they nobly roam
Thro ev'ry Region far from Home
Call in the Grecian Swiss Italian
The Roman [Russian?] Dutch Rapscallion
Fellows who Freedom never knew
To tell us what we ought to do
The next three Days they kindly dip yee
Deep in the River Mississippi
That made nine days eer they begin
Let us suppose them fairly in.
And the resolve me gently Friend,
How many months before they End?
Slavery was a huge issue of course in Virginia, and it is fascinating to read about how so many men who spoke out on the issue proclaimed that slavery and the slave trade were evil despite owning slaves themselves. That kind of cognitive dissonance would be gone a generation later when politicians just embraced slavery. During the ratification debate in Virginia, Edmund Randolph chastised Patrick Henry for suggesting that the Constitution would empower Congress to end slavery--Henry had argued that the clause allowing Congress to "provide for the common defence and general welfare" could empower Congress to end slavery. Randolph replied that there wouldn't even be a "spark of hope" for the slaves, and that nothing in the Constitution allowed Congress to end slavery, and that the clause in question could only be for taxes. We would probably not interpret it that narrowly today.
Meanwhile, New Hampshire had started to debate the Constitution in June, as well as New York. Anti-Federalists and Federalists both tried to coordinate the three state conventions but weren't very successful due to travel times. Virginia ratified the Constitution by a vote of 89 to 79 on June 25th, and finalized their convention on June 27th, recommending a bill of rights and an additional twenty amendments to the Constitution. That night, there were celebrations in Alexandria, shooting cannons and drinking wine, where Washington said the citizens were "federal to a man." They would learn early the morning of the 28th some bittersweet news: New Hampshire had ratified the Constitution a week earlier!
New Hampshire (9th ratification: June 21st, 1788)
When New Hampshire met for a second time to discuss the Constitution, ratification was much easier, and it passed 57-47. The Federalists were much more aggressive in counting votes the second time around and had agreed to make amendments to the Constitution after it was ratified.
New York (11th ratification: July 26th, 1788)
New York was the only convention in which the Federalists did not go in with control of the majority or close to it (Rhode Island had rejected the Constitution with a referendum previously). Only six or seven delegates spoke for each side, with Melancton Smith being a key figure for the Antis and Hamilton key for the Federalists. George Clinton, New York's governor and arch-Anti-Federalist, chaired the convention. The convention only met for four hours a day, between ten and two, to start, but then added a second session to each day later in June.
Just like in other conventions, the New Yorkers were interrupted with news from elsewhere--on June 24th, a week after opened, they got word that New Hampshire had ratified the Constitution three days earlier, and that the Constitution would go into effect whether New York ratified or not. On midday on July 2nd, word arrived that Virginia had ratified the Constitution, and most everyone expected that North Carolina would quickly follow. As Maier writes, that meant that if New York didn't ratify, "it would be left in the company of the despicable Rhode Island."
Like in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and elsewhere, religious tests came up for debate in New York (after all, the First Amendment didn't exist yet). New York was culturally open to other religions--on July 22nd, they postponed a Federalist parade to the next day to avoid a Jewish holiday, probably Tisha B'Av. A Rabbi even joined the Federalist procession along with clergymen of various creeds. Similar debates would occur in North Carolina as well and set the stage for the eventual First Amendment declaration of religious freedom, not just for Christians, but all religions. This was explicitly acknowledged in the religious test debate in North Carolina, discussing "pagans, deists, and Mahometans." It was thought better to "leave religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority; and no kind of oppression can take place," said Reverend David Caldwell in response to an assertion that it was a mistake to invite "Jews and Pagans" to "come among us." There was clearly a change taking place even in places where state constitutions had religious tests.
As news of other ratifications came in, debate turned in New York from whether to ratify the Constitution to how to ratify the Constitution. Melancton Smith led a contingent of moderate Anti-Federalists towards ratification, modifying their demand for amendments prior to ratification to a post-ratification demand, since the Constitution was in effect anyway. New York's amendments would include the due process clause of what became the Fifth Amendment. On July 24th, the convention discussed what had once been conditional amendments as statements of expectations instead. Finally, on June 26th, the New Yorkers voted 30-27 to ratify the Constitution, packaging the ratification with recommended amendments. Mobs in New York City celebrated by holding protests/riots outside prominent Anti-Federalists houses.
North Carolina (12th ratification: November 21st, 1789) and Rhode Island (13th ratification: May 29th, 1790)
While everyone thought North Carolina would go along with the Constitution just because Virginia did, the North Carolina convention surprised everyone. They didn't ratify until Washington was already inaugurated as president. North Carolina actually had the fourth-largest state population at the time, including what is now Tennessee, which included 36,000 of its 430,000-strong population. They didn't have real ports, making them reliant on South Carolina and Virginia for trade. While that might suggest that they needed to join the union, that lack of connection made the backwoodsmen and farmers in the interior of the state less connected, so they held out for longer. North Carolina ended up ratifying the Constitution in Fayetteville, 194-77.
Rhode Island was finally dragged into ratifying the convention in 1791, well into Washington's first term. Congress had delayed the imposition of tonnage charges on Rhode Island ships until January 1790, and then even then, Rhode Island allowed the deadline to pass and did not ratify. Congress extended the deadline, and then Rhode Island adjourned its session without ratifying on March 1st. Finally, in May, the Senate passed a bill that prohibited all trade with Rhode Island by land or sea, and, in response to threats from Newport to secede from the state, Rhode Island ratifying the Constitution by a vote of 34-32 on May 29th, 1790. It was a close one.
Conclusion
Was it a good idea to debate the Constitution in secret? I don't think we would do it that way today. Obviously, the result was a huge push for amendments as the Constitution went to the states. However, if it had been debated in the open, the actual drafting might have took much longer without much improvement. Every convention had to deal with Federalists explaining why certain compromises were made, and translating for Southerners the demands of Northerners and vice versa for every single divide in the country manifested in the Constitution.
In all records of conventions, not just Massachusetts, the diarists constantly compare the speakers to classical orators. These otherwise forgotten statesmen, such as Francis Dana, who had been American minister to Russia in the 1780s and was a delegate to the Massachusetts convention, are described by diarists in classical terms. Jeremy Belknap, who attended the convention, wrote that Dana "thunders like Demosthenes." In Virginia, Patrick Henry's son-in-law, Spencer Roane, said that Henry's "Touches of Eloquence" would "almost disgrace Cicero or Demosthenes." In New York, the Daily Advertiser reported that Robert Livingston's "fine humour" was bringing applause from both sides that that his "whole speech was a stream of delicate satire and truly Attic eloquence." It's amazing how momentous an occasion it was, how everyone knew it, and how their best frame of reference was classical history.
Madison was disappointed with the amendments to the Constitution, but most Federalists were happy it made it through. Madison ended up being a part of the amendment process, and even proposed an amendment that would have incorporated certain rights for individuals against the states, not just the federal government, almost a century before the 14th Amendment did so. As a final note, the first ten amendments, known to us as the Bill of Rights, were not known as the Bill of Rights until a century after ratification. Those amendments were not a pre-thought-out list of the most important rights, but just the list of amendments that could actually pass. They gained more significance after the Civil War, when the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments identified those original ten as the biggest guarantor of rights in the Constitution. The founding generation had looked at the Declaration of Independence as its bill of rights.
All in all, this was a fantastic book, and I would highly recommend it to anyone looking to learn about the Constitution and the ratification process. These debates can teach us a lot about how the founders thought of the Constitution, which is obviously critical for any Originalist analysis of the meaning of the text. Maier's book is a real masterpiece of putting those pieces together.
No comments:
Post a Comment